Queen City Robotics Alliance Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 461843966
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9802924265
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $285,671
- Expenses
- $322,809
- Assets
- $146,964
- Liabilities
- $1,537
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kaiwen Cheng (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Kaiwen Cheng (CEO): $27,234 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Nurturing the future workforce by providing practical hands-on STEM experiences for local youth.
What it reported doing in 2025
QCRA leverages the FIRST Robotics program to advance STEM education, now supporting 22 middle and high school robotics teams comprising over 300 students. In addition to coaching and mentoring, QCRA serves as the fiscal sponsor, overseeing team funds and expenses. We collaborate on fundraising initiatives to reduce participation costs for families facing financial constraints. Our outreach efforts promote STEM education and career awareness, reaching over 5,000 individuals annually. QCRA has also been selected as the local host for the NASA International Space Apps Challenge in Charlotte in 2024 and 2025, further expanding its impact across the Carolinas. To broaden access and strengthen the STEM pipeline, QCRA has expanded into year-round programming, including after-school programs and summer camps designed for students with little to no prior experience, as well as those seeking additional development. These programs provide hands-on learning in robotics and coding, reinforcing skills needed for continued participation in competitive teams. QCRA collaborates with corporate partners to provide scholarships, helping ensure affordability and reducing financial barriers so more students can participate.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 64.6%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -13%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 21.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 64.6% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $184K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $27K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.